Battle of the Dems: And the Winners are...

Bridgethought of the Day: Keep an open mind, so you'll always have a way to take out the trash.

For any political junkie with no time to check out every candidate on their own, the debate between the Democratic Presidential candidates was an event to savor. With work taking over life, I don't always find time to check out C-Span or wherever the candidates hang out, so I haven't really heard all that much from most of them, except Hillary, Edwards and Joseph Biden. Barack Obama appeared like a shining star a few years ago, and the rest is mythology - I didn't really know who he was. I suspect myself, as usual, to be typical of the general American public. So bearing that in mind, here are my picks for the winners of that momentous debate...or, if not exactly "momentous", at least more revealing than CNN photo ops:

Best Ears: Barack Obama



Most Progressive: Dennis Kucinich


All the truth, all the time: Mike Gravel



Most Charisma: Barack Obama



Most in charge: Hillary Clinton



Biggest Ears: Bill Richardson


Cutest Candidate: John Edwards

Least hi-falutin': Dennis Kucinich

Most hi-falutin': John Edwards

Most Suave, Presidential: Joseph Biden



Least Suave: Mike Gravel

Best performance in a stand-down: Barack Obama - another example of how performance trumps truth


Most improved: Barack Obama



Most likely to succeed now: Hillary Clinton




Most likely to succeed later: Barack Obama


Worst imitation of Genesis: Bill Richardson, "On the First Day, I would bring peace to Iraq; on the Second Day, I would balance the budget, on the Third Day, I would bring peace on earth..." Or was it peace on Capitol Hill?...

Most confident: Hillary Clinton

Most fatherly: Christopher Dodd

Most contentious: Mike Gravel

Most patriotic: Dennis Kucinich

Most centrist: Barack Obama

Most thoughtful: Dennis Kucinich


My favorite: Mike Gravel

Most surprised at : Barack Obama - I presumed he was more progressive, but either he is scripted to be a Man for All Reasons, passionately centrist, or I am too liberal to appreciate him. Obviously, he's a man who wants to get elected.

That's why my favorite is Mike Gravel. He knows he will never be elected, so he can tell the truth with gusto. Nothing like the truth to lift the spirit. Ah, for the day elections aren't exercises in hypocrisy!

Another unabashed truth-teller is Dennis Kucinich. The charisma scale was going into the negative, but his words and sincerity propelled him into the stratosphere for me. As a guru, not President. I wouldn't wish a job like that on someone so honorable.

Dodd, Richardson were solid, honest men, who just aren't going to go anywhere with this. Dodd lacked ... what is it? ... fire, sparkle, something... and Richardson was like a great Belgian horse ... he's not gonna fly...

Joe Biden looks like the Perfect Candidate, and you can't quite figure out what's missing. He came off as more capable than John Edwards to me, and I'm sure he's just got baggage from all those previous campaigns. John Edwards? Too pretty to be attractive, too sculpted to be compelling.
Most convincing, Most likely to turn things around: Hillary Clinton

I came with a 4.7 ton load of prejudice against Hillary, and left ready to vote for her. Even though I don't agree with many of her positions, was never enamored of her, and feel she will be too cozy with the status quo, yet she really effectively drove home an impassioned message of inclusion, fairness, equalizing, combined with the obvious hallmarks of experience: no raw rhetoric, yet every word had something substantial behind it. This inspires trust, willingness to overlook stuff, and a sense that here is a capable, reasonable, human being with the ability to lead and make well-considered decisions.

Congratulations!

Sorry, Mike...

Update on Sad Gitmo Story

Bridgethought of the Day: Who in the right-wing universe decided it was in our best interests to eliminate the idea of "children"?

One of those children, Omar Khadr, has been caught up in the non-entity "enemy combatant" definition of subhuman, an alien life-form commonly found subsisting in a life-free, soulless, sense-numbing world that would make Big Brother cringe - called Gitmo - a child who has begun to grow up to the ripe old age of 20 - after unspeakable torture and abuse at the hands of Americans just obeying orders from the President and his cronies, now has finally, years later, been formally charged - with murder, spying, and other terrorism-related offenses.

He'll be tried in a military tribunal. No questions about "adult" or "child", since he is now an adult, and who cares how old he was when he was "taken" at the age of 15. Enemy combatants are not arrested. They are "taken". No one reads them their rights. They have no rights. Not even the right to a family. Not even the right to communicate with others. Not even the right to hear, see, or feel. Not even the right to talk. Let alone have friends. Let alone due process. Let alone the right to just be a human being. Let alone the right to be, God forbid, a child.

No, the war on terror does not recognize children. If the child is from a "terrorist group", even if he is an infant, he cannot be defined as a "child" and therefore there is no limit on what atrocities can be committed on him. He is not even an adult. He has no nation, no people, no home, no family, no rights. He is not even a slave. Slaves have owners, who may (or may not) protect them. They can speak, at least. Even have children. But Gitmo residents have none of the above. Who gave the anyone the right to dehumanize another without even due process? How can we give up the very principles we learned from the horrible message of the Holocaust? How dare we descent into the police-state policies that created Hitler's Germany? And who is held to account for this?

No one.

And when will the guilty be tried? Or where? Or by whom?

In the next life. With a Judge they cannot escape.
In the meantime, we need more justice here on earth. Show us the power of your conscience.

The Bridge No One Crossed

Bridgethought of the Day: Why is it that for a person to get a closer, deeper understanding of God (and the meaning of life), they must always separate themselves from other people?

And yet other people are one of the most important elements of life. And being cut off from them can be demoralizing; it can turn the heart inside out.

Nobody wants to meet him, but everybody did. Meet "Cho", aka "Mr. Question Mark". The worst kind of meeting is at the end of a loaded gun, especially after the trigger is pulled. The explosion was as close to atomic as any person could probably get. What blew?

Betsy L. Angert has an unusual, insightful, and in many circles, probably unpopular take on the Virginia Tech "shooter", mass murderer, and almost-grad.

"My heart aches. Of course I mourn the passing of the thirty-two Virginia Polytechnic University students, as do we all throughout the globe. Nevertheless, I cannot forget how my heart hurts for the thirty-third victim, the one the media never seems to count among those killed, Seung-Hui Cho." Read more...

There are the expected reactions of disgust that a mass murderer should inspire sympathy, and the general idea that it is almost criminal to empathize with a criminal, especially one whose actions were so callous, cruel, and randomly destructive. I would hope, however, that this same sentiment would apply to politicians and leaders who send thousands to war to kill thousands more with no justifiable national defense reason. Why suddenly give them immunity, sympathy, and support?

The solution to terrorism is like the solution to random mass murders - stop burning bridges, start building and crossing over them. No one apparently tried hard enough to cross the bridge to Seung-Hui Cho. Not that I blame his parents or family, or anyone else. Society itself, here in America, makes crossing important bridges difficult to impossible by virtue of not being on the to-do list in a crammed timeframe for survival.

Top 10 Lies about Liberals

Bridgethought of the Day: Don't believe everything you hear. Just use it to figure out what's really going on.

From Acid Ann Coulter 45 to that guy who sadly for the Irish has an Irish name, but whom I don't want to mention on a page that has the Declaration of Independence on it, lots of "conservatives" or Bush apologists have put out considerable time and effort in trying to make the word "Liberal" synonymous with "Satan", but without, of course, naming names. Failing that, the next best thing involves the word "soft". The lies are voluminous, but these are my picks for the Top Ten.

10. Liberals destroy American culture and traditions.

A lie of convenience - yesterday, it was liberals who were "Hollywood". Unless, "Hollywood" is part of American culture, in which case liberals threaten Jennifer Anniston, or to be more "conservative", reruns of Katherine Hepburn. Or maybe because liberals don't build enough walls and sectarian divisions, encourage that dreaded assimilation. So we dilute the WASP pool, which is what, to some, America is all about. Are they afraid they'll go the way of the Indians? Yes! Let's bring back true American culture and traditions - starting with power to the Sioux.

Or is immigration the threat? So conservatives give all the favors and tax breaks to Big Business, who celebrate by hiring cheap foreign and immigrant labor so they can increase their profits even more, and then they can blame liberals for not wanting to tax and spend more on prisons and walls to lock everybody up - or out. Is that an American "tradition"?

9. Liberals have no backbone - don't stand for anything - they're "soft" on principles.

Another lie of convenience - yesterday, they were rabid unionists, bleeding hearts, women's libbers, integrationists and equal opportunists, and anti-war weenies. But now that people began to actually value standing for workers, the poor and oppressed, women, minorities, and peace, suddenly this no longer works, so they "re-define" what "backbone" means, and reclassify liberals as invertebrates. Watch your back, folks, it's a whole 'nother phylum!

"Backbone" now means "rigor mortis" of the conscience. The human conscience is redefinied as a coelenterate. Hello, "strong", "principled" torture, war-mongering and lying. Goodbye, "weak", "waffling" peace, human rights, and honesty.

8. Liberals promote World Government.

This is where they bring in the Conspiracy Theorists and fringe groups. It's designed to loosely match the allegation that Muslims gather to the rallying cry "Bring Back the Caliphate!" "You see? They want to dilute us to be ruled by them."

So please explain Henry Kissinger, Exxon Oil, and other multinational corporations. Explain the World Bank too, will ya? What threat exists from those fearsome, plane-hijacking hordes who spend 98% of their time killing each other off in their Quest for the Caliphate? Or should we fear something else? Especially if "we" are living in, say, Africa, where the biggest threat is starvation, and the biggest human threat is foreign looters of natural resources, making "us" unable to make a ... well, to survive.

7. Liberals are soft on crime.

Here we go with that fantasy of "soft" and "tough". Note they do not say "hard". Prisons are "tough". And that includes the neocon's newest Orwellian invention, the Family Prison. Yes, a prison for the whole family - dad, mom, and the kids, including infants! Now there's family values for ya! Now that's not soft - that's Gulag tough! And Halliburton wins again! Guess what? They're in the "get tough" prison business! It's a win-win!

Unfortunately, when it comes to government wrongdoing, abuse, and Constitutional violations, the "Conservatives" (sic) are not only soft on crime, they're downright cushy-mushy with it. Then the "Liberals" are tough on government abuse of power and flagrant lying and Constitutional violation/manipulation. Also, Liberals believe that "Corrections" is not a misnomer, and include something other than Medieval dungeons, like education and rehabilitation services which have a proven track record of reducing crime. Now that's effective crime-fighting, not anti-crime posturing.

And Liberals aren't exactly removing laws from the books or cutting down on police departments. They just want more money spent on crime-fighting here and less on the crime problems of everyone else, everywhere else. Including the overbloated Terrorist Task Forces, built on the assumption that there's one under every bed, we've just gotta find 'em, and dedicated to the proposition that All Arabs/Muslims Are a Potential Threat. Instead of using their manpower to deal with actual crime, they are spending all those resources, human and otherwise, on hunting down potential suspects who fit the "profile", and after six years of dedicated service, we have uncovered thousands and thousands of terrorist plots, all but 3 of them false alarms. Tough on imagined crime, soft on real crime. Liberals are on target. Myth busted.

6. Liberals subsidize laziness.

This is an obvious jab at the public "welfare" system, usually "blamed" on Liberals. So the best solution, following this line of logic, is to let the poor, handicapped, mentally impaired, insane, economically or socially disadvantaged, and others generally discriminated against, such as children without trust funds, yes, just let all these people fend for themselves! Because they ought to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, like General Patton, by God, and Republicans are there to help them do it by pulling out from under them any government assistance, so they can start from scratch just like Grandpa Bill did in 1892. Let's clear the government of this "waste" and these "huge government programs" that "take over" and "threaten our very democracy" by removing the God-given right of such people to just die and leave the rest of us alone.

Yes, it's subsidized "laziness" to try to feed and clothe disadvantaged children, especially if they are in this country, because that money could be better spent on weapons systems to kill such people in other countries, bomb civilian populations because they happen to live near a "terrorist hideout" or a "weapons facility" or an infant formula manufacturing plant.

But it's encouraging hard work to fill the Administration of the U.S. Government with good ol' boys and yes-men, and to eliminate job-training programs so we can spend more on the Iraq War, and we can employ more soldiers. Pretty soon, the only jobs left will involve guns and weapons systems. And they're all government jobs. And we want you...

5. Liberals are socialists, extremists, marginal, never mainstream.

If all of the above describes funding government to protect the unprotected, remember the forgotten, equalize the oppressed, free the enslaved, educate the ignorant, help the victimized, protect the environment and natural resources, and feed the hungry... then it's true.

But this assumes that such activities are "extreme" or "marginal" or the venue only of "socialists" (whatever they are as of now) - which sounds ludicrous to me. This presumes that ethical values, those traditional values taught in all "mainstream" religions, are actually "marginal" or "extreme" or "socialist". Now we're beyond ludicrous. Wasn't it Hitler who wanted to stop subsidizing the weak and the disadvantaged? He was definitely extreme, but he was no socialist. Get your values straight.

4. Liberals tax & spend, promoting Big Government.

Does Big Government mean Big Daddy, or Big Brother? The choice is yours. Our government has gotten big over time with the gradual increase of both largesse-to-humanity and control-freak-to-the-world. All costs money, all require taxes. But if you look at the stats, you find more "Liberal" governments, such as Clinton's, encouraging small business, opening up the U.S. economy, and creating an atmosphere of "can-do" and free enterprise ... all with relative fiscal responsibility and putting the deficit on a low-carb diet. With "Conservative" W's government, we are hemhorraging at the jugular from war after war after poorly-conceived, incompetently-run, special-interest-boggled war, the economy is going downhill along with the dollar, and small business is getting the shaft from huge, multi-national Goliaths who have the so-called "government" in their left pockets.

The rest of the money is going into more and more and more prisons, police, guards, soldiers, barbed wire, and detention camps. Especially aliens. We spend a lot on the detention and torture of aliens. All to keep you safe. Ah, and surveillance programs. Secret programs where you can be watched by Big Brother and you can't even know what you're charged with, or what they found out, or who they'll send it to, or why, or if you'll even have a home, country or family to your name tomorrow. Big Brother is watching you. But not on a Liberal's watch.

Hi, Dick!

3. Liberals are unpatriotic.

If patriotic means having flag tie tacks and bumper stickers, or attending VFW Post 47 meetings: guilty as charged.

If patriotic means defending the Constitution, our Democracy in its highest principles, and all that America stands for and has stood for over 230 years, including those rights guaranteed in the Amendments to the Constitution, then I submit that Liberals are in fact, carrying the torch of liberty at this time in history, and Conservatives, as represented by "neocons" and the Bush Administration, are posing the greatest threat to the freedom and democracy we hold so dear.

2. Liberals are bad for business.

Read number 4 above. The so-called Conservative pro-business stance only refers to the gargantuan powerful corporations who can afford to foot the bill for today's election campaign. Tax breaks are only for the rich. The poor have ... bootstraps. Try starting a business with bootstraps, Dick. This one should simply be corrected: "Liberals are bad for ... the unstoppable rise of the superrich."

1. Liberals are soft on defense, and weaken America's superiority and stature in the world.

Again, the word "soft" used deceptively. "Tough" means spending on weapons and defense industries all the money we get from the IRS and more, borrowing on future income. Since when is opening the floodgates of the economy and "Homeland" resources on one single government department "tough"? I would say neocons have a "soft" spot for the killing department, and a "hard" spot for people. No more weakness! We are tough! Thus spake Adolph in Germany many years back. It was all about detention camps, getting tough, looking for criminals and conspirators in every closet, and getting a purpose so the war machine can be motivated and on the move, inventing new killing machines, and increasing the military. And he didn't have to tamper with votes to get elected, democratically.

As for "America's stature", Bush and his cronies have succeeded in weakening that stature more than anyone could have imagined a few years ago, making us hated in Europe, not to mention in less familiar territory. Europe! I mean, these were our allies in WWII. There's been all this goodwill for over 50 years, and now... well, just go undercover and sit in any cafe, any public place, from the Netherlands to Germany to Italy to... it's definitely NOT a good time to be an American. Better stay home...

This was not the case with the last Liberal president, when America was on the ascendant, able to broker deals and command the respect and even admiration of many nations from east to west. Now someone tell me ... why is this "tough guy" stuff backfiring? I thought everybody loves a bully! Gee, I thought if you just tell everybody that we're the Leader of the Planet and we're the Best People on the Whole F-ing World and everyone else better tow the line and listen up, then everybody would just love us and obey us and worship us. And it was the Liberals who were going to put us all to shame, and make us an international pariah.

Soft on defense? Maybe soft on "offense". Weaken America? That's the Neocon Way. They just don't say it that way. It would be too damn honest. Haven't you heard? Honesty is soft.

Plan II: Let's Play Religious Cowboys

"I'm not a divider, I'm a uniter."

Would you buy a used insurance policy from this man?

"I don't sell insurance, I sell wars."

Is that like death insurance instead of life insurance?

"Exactly. At some point, people will stop dying enough to balance out the birth rate. I'm doin' a public service. War is good for the human race and good for the planet. And who's got the guts to do it, I ask you? Democrats? Since when did a Democrat give you a half-decent war?"

But I thought war was not healthy for children and other living things...

"Where are you from - the Vegetarian Times? PBS? Amy Goodman?"

I'll put it this way - I'm not from Haliburton.

"Let me put it this way - we've got to change the world, and make it safe for democracy, and there's only one way to do it, and that's make war."

Can't we talk? Negotiate? Whatever happened to diplomacy? And by the way, why are you dressed that way?

"First off, I never negotiate with terrorists. Second off, diplomacy is what's wrong with the world. And third, I'm under a lot of pressure, bein' Leader of the Planet. This is how I relax. I can just blend in and nobody will notice me."

Are you crazy? Everyone will stare at you, dressed like that.

Not in Karachi, or Yemen. Where do you think I relax? Camp David? I need to be around guys who are on the same page about war. Sick of these goddamned liberals talkin' about peace and they don't know what they're doing. We're uniting the world. On to Armageddon!

Excuse me, I need some air. I can't breathe.

"But there's plenty of air in here, yuk, yuk. It's just comin' out the wrong end..."

(Your "plans" must be coming out of there, too...)

Top 10 Casualties of the Patriot Act

Bridgethought of the Day: Welcome to the Patriot Act - Undermining the very thing it is supposed to protect - "the land of the free and home of the brave"... Welcome to government by fear, Welcome to Fortress America, where no one goes unwatched ...

Is the "War on Terror: Homeland Front" doing its job? Is the Patriot Act keeping out the enemies of freedom, and protecting Americans? Are we safer now than before? Are we protecting our democracy? Or are we undermining our own freedom, democracy, and even our own security? How could the legislation that is supposed to make law enforcement more efficient in catching terrorists now be the very instrument of our own demise as a world power and as a safe and secure place for children to grow up in?

The Patriot Act introduced sweeping changes into how government operates. It grants broad powers to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to conduct secret surveillance of people and share information so obtained, based only on suspicion and not on probable cause, and then to take action against persons in many cases without due process, and against which action there is no legal recourse for the accused. Suspicion of terrorism, even merely by association, however tentative that association, and without consideration of mitigating factors such as a history of law-abiding contribution to society, can lead to revocation of citizenship and criminal prosecution... perhaps re-classification as a non-human "enemy combatant" who is fair game for torture ... until proven innocent - and lots of luck with that...

Here's Top Ten in the Patriot Act carnage:

10. A sense of security.
There is the urgency to undercut the feeling that we are safe in our homes and that law enforcement is capable of maintaining that safety for the majority of law-abiding, income-producing citizens. The constant refrain "Don't be lulled into a false sense of security", is designed to make us feel guilty if we feel relatively safe. The Patriot Act is based on the presumption that we are not secure and need to take drastic measures to become safe.

9. Mutual Trust.
If people in a society are supposed to suspect and fear others in their midst - others who may be hard to identify - lurking perhaps everywhere, then it becomes a cultural and ethical norm to suspect and betray the privacy of others for the so-called "greater good" of Homeland Security.
But without mutual trust, economic activity diminishes, contributions to society slide, a general willingness to help or to forgive others shrivels, and the kinds of compromise required for a large and complex society to function effectively are avoided as a security risk. The greater imperative encouraged by the Patriot Act is wariness and suspicion. Since the actual number of bona fide terrorists is miniscule in comparison to the general population, we will become increasingly wary of and antagonistic to each other. There's this huge infrastructure in place, and not much actual "enemy" material to work with, so who do you think will be the object of all that paid attention? Osama bin Laden? Or ... everyone else ...?

8. Rule of Law.
The Patriot Act presumes that the rule of law, as it stood, was insufficient to ward off terrorism, and that the terrorist attack on 9-11 was the result of security breaches due to excessive freedom, too many checks and balances, and too much due process, not enough secrecy in government, and far too little surveillance with too many protections for individuals from government excess. The Patriot Act then "corrected" these "weaknesses" in order to secure the American state from outside attack, supposedly.
Since the rule of law was considered a weakness, this creates the general consensus that the Rule of Law in itself is insufficient or inefficient to deal with crime or crisis. It's not, as portrayed to the public, a case of making laws "more strict." In fact, it's a case of making the laws more lax on government, favoring the accuser over the accused, hence creating an imbalance in the scales of justice that leans toward mob rule and revenge, where "strict" and "strong" means "vicious" and the "strongest" laws are those that hold human life in the greatest possible disregard - reinstating torture as an "acceptable" technique and creating a right-less subhuman class of persons called "enemy combatants" who have neither country nor family nor rights nor due process nor recognition of their belonging to the same species as American government agents.

7. The Moral High Ground.
Goodbye America the Beautiful, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Hello, expediency. Hello, Fortress America, Land of the Watched and Home of the Suspicious.
Abu Ghraib was not an isolated "rogue" incident. It is the logical outcome of a policy, exemplified by the Patriot Act and the policies in place at Guantanamo, which demonizes enemies to where degradation and torture are all part of accepted behavior. Remember, it's for the "greater good" of Homeland Security.
The only argument one dares to raise against torture is a self-serving, expedient one: were we to allow torture of others, then others might conceivably be allowed to torture us. But the higher ground argument that such actions are by definition unconscionable no longer rules. Who wants to be accused of weakness in a culture of power?
As a result, the world looks down at us as abusive, oppressive, inconsiderate boors with their own self-interest and power-grabs ONLY in mind. And we wonder why they don't love us!

6. Due process - the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act removes all these safeguards from terrorism suspects, terrorism being considered a class in itself of criminal activity, with its own code of law wherein these guarantees are denied. One could say this is incidence of war - but that is referring to actual fighters and militia, not someone's grandmother using a library to look up "Islam"... Yet technically, according to the Patriot Act, that grandmother could have a National Security Letter taken out on her because of her suspicious behavior of looking up "Islam", and the FBI, without her knowledge, could tap her private emails and phone calls, and exchange them with, say, the government of Sweden, or Israel, or, for that matter, Singapore, should they so desire. Next thing she knows, some Belgian spies are watching her apartment for suspicious activity, trying to find out the facts on the "cell" she supposedy belongs to.

What is she accused of? She can't find out. What are the witnesses against her? Nole mi tangere. Who will speak out in her behalf? Nobody even knows this is happening! It's all secret. We might say "that's a shame" if her name is Ethel Johnson. But what if her name is Naima Abdullateef? Maybe her son is a terrorist. And if he is, she's sure as hell going down with him. Thanks to the Patriot act. She is unwittingly a witness against herself in an entirely clandestine suspicion-based crime investigation. And not just any crime. The Crime of Crimes: terrorism.

5. The 4th Amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Congress, no less, has passed an Act of law basically circumventing this right. The right itself, like due process, is considered a weakness, a security hole that must be plugged. The executive branch, no less, now has the right to search and seize private information and communications from any and all private citizens or non-citizens, in the name of the "greater good" of Homeland Security. To hell with probable cause - suspicion is enough! This brings the rule of law right down to where laws become discretionary playthings in the hands of individuals with power. It's emotion and prejudice trumping logic and principle. In our culture of power, what counts is who has the biggest stick, not who carries the torch. If there is a torch, in the power-culture, it's used to torch someone or something, certainly not to light the way.

With the Patriot Act, it's no longer about where we're going. It's about what we're going to take, or how much we can grab.

4. The 2nd Amendment and 8th Amendment.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These two amendments may not seem related, but the Patriot Act mows both down by presuming terror suspects to be undeserving of liberty or human rights - In the case of the 2nd Amendment, bearing arms itself may fall into the category of "suspicious activity", where "suspicious" is largely undefined, and arms could conceivably be used by terrorists, and therefore could raise "red flags." And what was the point of the 2nd Amendment? To keep citizens free from a potentially hostile or oppressive government or even environment, and to maintain their own security and liberty. Now that the Patriot Act has forced citizens to surrender security issues solely to powerful government agents, and made all government's activities protected by secrecy, it creates an atmosphere where federal government power is the common good, is identified as "the greater good" of Homeland Security. People bearing arms forms a threat, and could be prosecuted as "terrorism" under the right circumstances.

In the case of terror suspects, no bail is allowed, and in interrogations, cruel and unusual techniques are mandated, even though the subject of interrogation is only under suspicion and not receiving punishment for a crime of which he has been duly convicted. In other words, if cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional, what about cruel and unusual interrogation methods, where the latter carries the possibility of complete innocence on the part of the subject? These are not questions addressed by the Patriot Act. It's all about the image of a bigger and bigger stick.

3. The First Amendment.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Patriot Act makes it lawful for the government, particularly the Executive Branch, to use "speech" or published writings, on the internet or otherwise, that it finds "suspicious" or indicative of terrorist activity or support or even sympathy, against any individual as "evidence" of a potential security threat hence terrorist threat, and thus prosecute and/or detain that individual without due process based on such speech or "press" activity. If this is not an "abridgement" of the freedom of speech and the press, I don't know what could possibly be.

Not so long ago, we used to chide the Soviet Union for their lack of freedom of the press or of speech, because they would hold it against someone if he criticized the government or spoke out in any way against the regime. Now we have enshrined in law the capability of government to essentially take punitive action against people for their words, perhaps using "keywords" such as "bomb" or "jihad", and such people are treated as guilty until proven innocent. But it's all for the "greater good" of Homeland Security.

As for freedom of religion, there is still more of that here than in most so-called "Muslim countries" (where Muslims are generally not free to practice Islam, except a government-sterilized version), but nonetheless, the Patriot Act does put a damper on religious activities for Muslims in America by making mosques and Islamic gatherings on the "keyword" list for suspicious activities where it is presumed terrorist cells may be congregating and planning their next exploding pot luck dinner. Again, even though the percentage of actual terrorists even among Muslims is infinitesimally slim (by all official counts), it is guilt-by-association, where Muslims are considered fair game in the suspicion-driven money-fueled mandate to find and stop terrorists, even if there aren't any, wherever Joint Terrorism Task Forces are sold.

2. The Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So the Constitution was designed to accomplish all the things the Patriot Act was written to do. Isn't it strange that the Constitution worked for 200 years, and then suddenly, in 2001, stopped working, and needed to be circumvented? Why is liberty, once so precious and powerful, now so cheap and such a liability? Why now is it supposed to "insure domestic tranquility" to dump the very rights that once secured the peace? Why do we now see draconian measures and executive overkill as the road to victory and power? Why is it no longer about checks and balances and suddenly now about who has the biggest stick? Why do we abandon marriage/diplomacy and go for invasion/rape? Did somebody inject us with political testesterone?

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Because the high crime of treason, in a sense the highest or worst national crime, had strict protections so as not to be abused, a new crime had to be invented, called "terrorism", for which no protections for the accused exist, and for which "association" even by being a relative, are considered grounds for conviction. No need for "witnesses" or "overt act" here. All we need is someone who doesn't like you, has a fairly decent reputation, and wants to hurt you by claiming you commit some terrorist act or contribute to terrorism, and you're toast. No trial, no jury. No confession. Someone says he thinks you're guilty - sayonara, baby. Welcome to Homeland Security Hell. But it's all for the "greater good" of Homeland Security. Who cares if it doesn't work?

1. The United States of America, Superpower.

The final casualty of the Patriot Act and all that goes with it, such as military training programs that create a "sense of enmity" by dehumanizing the enemy, so the soldiers can be more vicious, hence more "powerful" (yeah, right), or the fun & games at Gitmo, is the very thing we are trying to defend - America itself.
Without our Constitution, Bill of Rights, freedoms, checks and balances, rule of law, moral high ground, mutual trust, and sense of safety and security at home, without concern for our fellow man or humans, what the hell are we? America? Oh, really? Is America then just a cultural roundup of celebrities and fast-food gluttony? Is it just about money and excess? Is it just about power? Is that what the people of the world are supposed to look up to and say "Leader of the Planet"? Will God "shed His grace" on this brave new world? Are we lying to ourselves?
Americans are a pariah in Europe - just go there and listen to the word on the street. People absolutely hate Americans around the world. Because of the very crassness with which we expediently drop our moral values for more flashy power-plays and resource-grabs. To the world, it's transparent that the U.S. invaded Iraq for geopolitical clout and lotsa petroleum - period. Only the American people diligently believed the obvious lies manufactured by U.S. government spinsters. Only the naive and trusting American journalists played out the lies as if they could possibly be considered seriously as truth - to this very day, they discuss the idea of the Iraq war as a war for democracy in the Middle East, as if this could actually have been genuinely true. Wow - as H.L. Mencken once said, "no one ever lost money overestimating the stupidity of the American people." Why do you think the government is so rich it can squander trillions and you can't even know about it?
And like all great empires, this one too must come to an end. The same way, too - death by hubris. But we have packaged our hubris in one neat little legislative doozie, the Patriot Act. It's supposed to keep America safe from terrorists - by simply eliminating America - so they won't have anything to attack! No democracy, no freedom, no rights, no problem!
The problem is, what the terrorists were trying to attack was not freedom, rights and democracy (contrary to common belief), but oppression, or what they perceived as U.S.-supported oppression. And that still stands. Then someone told some of them that they sure picked a hell of a stupid way to fight oppression. And we've been hard-pressed to find any really threatening cells since then. Though our truthy government tells us they are stopping terrorist plots right and left 24/7. Do you believe that?
Then maybe you believe that we are in Iraq so they don't come here, not in Iraq so they don't have to come here, and not in Iraq so we can keep them all riled up and active so we can grease the war machines and get those ratings up and save the G.O.P. from death by association. Maybe you don't believe it's much easier for them to kill Americans over there on their turf and under their rules than here. Maybe you don't believe that we are fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq in hopes that we can "divide and conquer". Maybe you don't believe we could be so incompetent.
Maybe you still believe in America. I do. It's up to We the People to bring it back from the brink.

Sometimes, you're lucky enough to run into someone who says everything you wanted to say, only somehow better. This is one such article, by the Existential Cowboy. You can read how beautifully John Stuart Mill expressed the basis for our Constitution and its careful design in protecting our freedoms. Freedoms now being undermined by the Bush administration and his Republican cohorts. I've long said that if the terrorists were really after democracy or after our liberty, then we have taken up their fight for them, and that may explain why terrorist activity is mysteriously on a downward slide - except in Muslim v. Muslim bloodbaths, the brainchild of Divide & Conquer Adventurists. Why fight to destroy our liberty when we are doing such a bangup job ourselves?

You might also want to check out why Bush is the torture president, same author.

It is all a part of the new movement of Armageddonists. It's their cause celebre. Fight the last fight, you might say. After all, if they kill everyone off, no one can attack them again. Sort of like the ultimate cancer cure. Chemotherapy for the planet. Just eliminate life! Brilliant Republican victory strategy! Get rid of immigrants, aliens, non-English-speakers, non-Israeli-sympathizers, non-Christians who are not Jewish, and ultimately, anyone who refuses to swear on a stack of Machiavellis. Get rid of anyone who uses expressions like "democracy now" and other socialist catchphrases. Because we need to bend the constitution and screw the founding fathers, except insofar as they appear on Legal Tender. We are the Armageddonists. Let's bring it on down - NOW!

Hopefully, someone will actually use their mind and turn off the circuit breaker at the Other Evil Church. Between all these evil churches, there's this boiling cauldron, and I'm not yet sure what's for supper - just so it's not the last one...

Think Fear, Think Obliteration, Think Armageddon

Bridgethought of the Day: What is more terrifying - walls that are too low, or weapons that kill too much?

As usual, spending my time reading people whom I can hardly stand, such as the immutable Cal Thomas and his weird, but frighteningly popular, rants. Oh no! I read it on "Cal": "Free world is Letting Its Guard Down." A study in Britain showed teachers reluctant to "covering the 11th-Century crusades, when Christians fought Muslims for control of Jersalem, because the lessons contradict what Muslim students are taught in mosques. The sacrifice of truth in favor of propaganda for fear of violence is the first step on the road to enslavement."

Now that latter bit of wisdom is great advice for the Bush administration. Yes, it IS true! We do sacrifice truth in favor of propaganda, although for more reasons that here stated, and it definitely is the first step on the road to enslavement. All that's really promoted these days in the way of news is propaganda and selective news-revealing, something akin to the avoidance of discussions of the crusades in British schools. And the cause is the same, albeit in a different flavor - fear of Islam and Muslims.

The difference is in Cal's scenario in Britain, they fear an imagined "Muslim backlash" if their presentations are perceived as anti-Islamic, while here the Bush administration fears Islam and Muslims in general and "Islamic" terrorists in particular and hence produces propaganda that, rather than trying to avoid Muslim anger, shows the "Big Stick" and "Big Brother" factors to strongarm potential "Islamic terrorists" into submission, backing off, or fearful hesitancy and, it is hoped, ultimate weakness and/or defeat. In Britain and Europe, according to Cal, the public desires retreat from international and military involvement that they see as incendiary to the testy Islamic element abroad. But here in the US of A, the public supposedly - or at least good ol' Cal - wants or needs more international and military intervention and involvement to protect us against the Islamic and Mongol hordes that are ever on the march to our doorstep.

He hates the propaganda of retreat, but loves the propaganda of aggression and war, because he views the latter as the road to security. Oh, really? as my 10-yr-old would say...

In all propaganda camps, it seems, the real enemy is still Islam and Muslims. They are to be feared - it's just an issue of how to respond to that fear: retreat or aggression? Yeah, who's the biggest, baddest macho on the rock? What d'ya think we're gonna do? Back out when our enemies are on the attack?

Nobody asks - are they even on the attack? or are they even the enemy??? Why do we always insist on oversimplifying things? When the going gets tough, we go back to childhood: good guys vs. bad guys, and guess who always wears the good guy outfit? Right, Rove: The Big Guy! The Bully! By Machiavelli, you're right! But does wearing the good guy outfit make a guy good??? And putting a bad guy outfit on another guy - does it make him bad? Why don't people ever use their minds????

Let's just get into Cal's mind for a moment, to be fair and fruitful. Here's fodder for the flames of fear: "In Belgium, a newspaper has published a copy of the Koran in French and offered free coupons for a Flemish language translation of Islam's holy book. The paper also published a book called 'Islam Now,' which presents a history of the religion up to the modern era. I haven't seen it, but would be willing to bet it contains little, if anything, about the terrorism carried out in the name of Islam by fanatics."

Gee, Mr. Thomas, if you're willing the bet that the Qur'an, even in translation, carries little or nothing about terrorism carried out in the name of Islam, then what the hell are you worried about from other Muslims? I know, of course, that you don't really mean that the Qur'an does not promote terrorism in any shape or form, or that fanatics don't represent Islam, but that's what you said, sir. And, for once, I think you've got something there. And if the Qur'an doesn't promote terrorism or even mention it, even in passing, let alone promote it, then why should you have this all-out fear of Islam and Muslims?

What, after all, makes "terrorists"? Is it religion? NO! Is it oppression? OBVIOUSLY. Oppression is one of the most grievous crimes against humanity - hey, murder is a form of oppression, one used rather liberally by right-wing dictators, including those who call themselves, coincidentally, "Muslim". Are they right-wing dictators because of the Qur'an or because of Islam? God forbid! There's an emphatic NO again. Are terrorists from Al-Qaeda or otherwise doing what they do because of the Qur'an or Islam? Absolutely NOT. All of these reactions, rather Newtonian, I might add (for every action - oppression - there's an equal and opposite reaction - terrorism, the reactionary form of oppression), are caused by social, political, and economic dynamics. Religion is just dragged along for the ride. Yes, there's a fatwa here, and a Bible verse there, but it does not form a unified front, does not form a Mongol horde, and is not coming to a skyscraper near you.

In fact, maybe Cal would like to know, or maybe not, now that I think of it, why, oh why, hasn't Mr. Bin Laden come up with another big Spectacular terrorist Show. The answer is easy - well known - and eminently true: because some people more knowledgeable in the Qur'an and in Islam than him advised him that this was simply wrong. In other words, other Muslims advised UBL that the Qur'an actually does not promote terrorism, but rather condemns it, and therefore, he acquiesced, stopped the show, and the terror level gradually slipped back to where it is today: orange.

Basically, the fanatics, and oppressed Muslims as well, have gone back to what they do usually: kill each other.

So Cal was right after all - the Qur'an and Islam have nothing but condemnation of terrorism, and say nothing about the terrorist fanatics and their plans, because these are not religious plans. In fact, the more that is known about the Qur'an and Islam, and the more that is taught, the less terrorism, fanaticism and war there will be, and the safer the world will be for democracy, Western or Eastern or even Centrist... But the West does not want democracy or peace. Far be it from them to want such a thing. They consistently promote the diametrical opposite: supporting tyrants and their tyrrany, building up and interfering militarily with everything they can get their hands on, for which they have even an outside chance of imposing false impunity, even in the short term. Tyranny and oppression - this is the cause of terrorism, not Islam, not the Qur'an, not some religious groups talking about the return of the Caliphate, like the Return of the Jedi, NO! It's your tyranny, or tyranny you tolerated, promoted, turned a blind eye to, etc., that's coming back like that old Newtonian reaction again.

Don't blame God, blame physics.

Don't Worry: It's Just Armageddon

Bridgethought of the Day: When lies are your opium, truth is your enemy.

So we've reached the point where the "leadership" tells us we're much safer, freer, and more democracy-loving when we march and chant "On to Armageddon!" First, we're numbed into thinking half the world are our enemies, planted in unknown "cells" all over the planet, and only much-more-sophisticated-than-us "agents" of the Hometown-Barbeque-lovin' U S of A are gonna save us from them by using draconian techniques and gittin' them and puttin' them away so they won't come-n-git us. Second, we're numbed into thinking they are not people, but enemies who must be gotten rid of, killed off, whatever it takes, to make the world safe for us. Third, it's the same logic of the war on cancer: zap the bad cells, save the good cells. Both wars ignore the fact that what kills the bad cells, kills the good cells, and that interferes with, sometimes even prevents, recovery. We say there might be a better way, but we don't have it. This is all we have.

So Armageddon is just radiation therapy for bad terrorist cells. Call it radiation, call it chemo, it's what we call "zap 'em for democracy." So Bush comes to us and tells us we've got to "surge" (read "zap" as in "war on terror/cancer") or "they" will come and "get" us. And we will be destroyed and overrun by "them". Anyone who says otherwise is "sick". "Dangerous". He's leaving us open to this cancer, see? He's a wimp, he's a liberal, and we're going to be "taken over" if we don't "march on."

But we're losing the war on cancer, and we're losing the war on terror. In fact, we're making the world far more dangerous for us, and far more prone to terrorism. I know of a cancer victim in another country where there's no law against overkill. Radiation therapy increased his cancer, right off the charts. They figured if radiation killed cancer, right? it must mean that more is better, right? The concept of balance, of complexity, of human life and life-systems, that's all beyond them. It's just a matter, to them, of finding who's the culprit, what will get rid of, i.e., zap, that culprit, and sic 'em. If guns fight terrorism, we need more. Lots more. So what if we don't even know what the hell terrorism is? Do we even know what cancer is? We want easy, fast keywords, not knowledge. We want to know: terrorism, Islam, Arabs, comin' to git us. We don't want to know: oppression, justice, chaos, balance of power, abject poverty, abuse of wealth and power, consequences. We don't want to use our minds. We don't want to use diplomacy. We want someone else to zap the enemy and we can be number one. Couch potatoes rule.

Let Bush explain why an innocent man in the street now can be dragged away and tortured without recourse, without rule of law. Let him explain why mere suspicion is enough to detain someone, regardless of his age, regardless of the consequences to his family. Let him explain why freedom of religion does not extend to those who practice Islam. Let him explain why pornographers have freedom of speech but dissenters do not. Let him explain why innocent people can be dragged away and deprived of their freedom, their livelihood, and their families, for nothing more than a keyword, or a color. A color? Yeah, try being someone with a Muslim name when the terror level goes red, if you really wanna know...

It looks to rational citizens of other countries that Americans are ready to kill and torture people they irrationally do not like only to make the world comfortable for couch potatoes. This may not seem reasonable to those who never walked on the other side, who feel more threatened by a weird-lookin' Mideastern guy who doesn't drink beer than by a computer system that records their every move. People who "fit in" don't have to worry like people who "stand out". They don't need diplomacy. They need a comfort zone. But those outside the comfort zone, those who, try as they might, just can't get there, see that they are under siege. They need a voice of reason. They need a bridge between their hunger, their desperation, and your comfort zone. If all voices of reason, all diplomatic infrastructure, all peaceful response and all hope for economic and political justice are eliminated, bombed, or silenced, what kind of bridge do you think they'll build? They must tell the world their story. They might just tell it the way you tell yours. With violence.

So the war on terror begets more warfare. And more warfare begets more instability. And more instability begets more hostility, more warfare, etc., etc., and we've got full-fledged malignancy. It's out-of-control, unregulated war growth. It thrives on darkness and lack of oxygen. There's no justice, no democracy, no liberty, no freedom in a war zone. We're not fighting terrorism, we're creating it. We're not zapping the enemy. We're zapping our remaining healthy cells. The "terrorists" weren't really after democracy, in spite of all the rhetoric. They were just after getting across a message that they don't like our being bully to the world. It's in a way a macho thing. But if they were against democracy, we have joined them in the fight, and the way our rights are being zapped, the war against democracy might be a winning deal in all this - but it's being won by us, abusing power to erode our own democracy and freedom.

But don't feel bad, feel good - it's Armageddon, and it's good for you.

Bridging the "Unbridgeable Chasm"

Bridgethought of the Day: In the ultimate power struggle, love always trumps hate. But the trick is, you can't have lost that capability to love.

Bobby Ghosh, in his cover piece in Time magazine about the Shi'a vs. Sunni conflict, especially as it plays out now in Iraq, and spread through the rest of the middle east, called that "religious" enmity an "unbridgeable chasm". He lays blame for the bloodshed on Bush's ill-conceived and disastrously-implemented invasion of Iraq. And he describes in details how the conflict grew from mutual cooperation, where Sunni & Shi'a Muslims peacefully coexisted, to incomprehensible brutality and cruelty, to hate without measure, a downwardly spiraling plunge into the anti-human, the anti-moral, the anti-faith. Civil war? Ethnic cleansing? Unconscionable slaughter...

And then there's this solution. It comes off almost like some peace march from the 60's. We'll sign petitions, we'll arrange sensitivity sessions between rivals, we'll all hold hands, Sunnis on one side, Shi'as on the other, and we'll give peace a chance, and everybody will get together and love one another right now. But ... in another country ... where there is no invasion, no reason to hate each other, no economic implosion-gone-blackhole (exempted: Big Oil).

Here it is, though, and the argument is true, and pretty well-put, I might add. I particularly liked these points:

• Dialog allows parties to understand each other better by allowing
  participants to acquire direct knowledge about beliefs instead of relying on
  propaganda and stereotypical images. (Quran 49:6-12)
• Dialog will isolate the extremist fringe. It is a major sin to kill a human being. Killing a human being is like killing the whole of humanity. By talking to each other, Shias and
  Sunnis will be able to save lives, which is like saving the whole of humanity.
  (Quran 5:32)
• Revenge is not justice. Killing in revenge is unjust, inhuman,
  and un-Islamic. Retribution through the state, which the Quran sanctions via
  capital punishment does not amount to individuals taking the law in their hands
  or killing an innocent person in revenge. The call for, "an eye for an eye,"
  does not mean an innocent eye for an innocent eye.
• Even if some Shias and Sunnis consider each other enemies, the Quran asks us to be just even toward one's enemy "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and
  depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah
  is well-acquainted with all that you do." [Quran 5:8]

This is great advice for resolving any conflict, I think. The first point, about how dialog allows people to get away from stereotypes - that cartooning thing - and have genuine understanding, is one I'm practically obsessed with. Dialog, diplomacy, communication, understanding ... things the "Superpower to the World" is running mighty short on, banking heavily on the "me Tarzan grab biggest stick" theory of how to run this planet. Wouldn't it be great if they would finally get out of the socio-political stone age and discover things like ... agriculture? language? diplomacy? trade? discussion? give-n-take? infrastructure rebuilding? bridges?

Right now, we're focusing all the blood, sweat, and resources of The United States on bludgeoning populations whenever we feel "a threat", which, on our bludgeoning path, is with ever-increasing frequency. Instead of sending in more guns, why not "surge" diplomacy? Send in the best minds, the best plans, the best resources, the best bridge-builders? What is wrong with that?

What's wrong is it would involve admission of a mistake. It would involve some kind of humility. It would also be a complete reversal of MO. Nobody believes in it. We believe in force, guns, and power. Typical humans. The very power they believe in is what will ultimately destroy them. Not by terrorists. But by their own hands. We're all worried about the Shia-Sunni conflict. But we're not worried about how this empire-building is destroying what the U.S. was supposed to stand for. That is, freedom, justice, and democracy... yeah, right...

Victory for Bush in Iraq! Here it is! But in "fine print"...

Bridgethought of the Day: The greatest triumphs of tyrants will ultimately be seen only as tyranny. (Even if that 'ultimately' is no more, or less, than Judgment Day.) How about this great lie? "We want the Iraqis to share their oil wealth - that is the most important thing." We say "share with each other". We mean "lion's share for us." And "us" means simply the U.S. & Big Oil. For Bush, it's a win-win. For the Iraqis, it's a lose-lose. Check this article out.

There's a little "appropriations package" attached to a bill touted as "fairness" for Iraqis, and giving them their own oil to share equitably with each other. It's all part of the spin that we are the Heroic Crusader fighting for the rights of the people to give them democracy and save them from the oppressive tyrant dictator, and save the world from Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Eliminate Terrorism, which is the Scourge of the Earth. But we, the Hero, are not gutting their resources, fomenting violent civil war, creating pockets of real terrorism and brutality where none of that ilk existed, and fueling anti-American sentiment worldwide, and making life itself in Iraq virtually impossible. We are not increasing instability and extremism in the Middle East by misguided and ill-conceived plans. This is all merely a side effect of our real goal: victory.

Congratulations! We've won the war! We're getting the oil! Isn't that all that really matters? After all, without oil, we will lose our way of life, and Exxon will lose its bottom line. Can you imagine anything worse? Bush can't. And if Bush can't, and he is the "leader of the planet", who can???

Oh, yeah, those wicked liberals can. That's why they're wicked and evil. Because they dare to stop the spin and look at what's been swept under the rug - like those rusty consciences that Barry Goldwater used to talk about. That went out when Rove began to swear on stacks of Machiavellis. Bibles? That's just a front. The real Book is called "The Prince." Read it and weep.

But even the liberals know how to play ball. This little tidbit is written into a bill they, too, espouse. Tacked on to the "bring the troops home earlier" bill, is just what Dr. Rove ordered - victory for Big Oil, and the Bush family staple.

They called it "Revenue Sharing." A must-have clause -'cause it's The Clause.

"Yes, revenue sharing is there-essentially in fine print, essentially
trivial. The bill is long and complex, it has been years in the making, and its primary purpose is transformational in scope: a radical and wholesale reconstruction-virtual privatization-of the currently nationalized Iraqi oil industry.

If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil,
Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5’s of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing “benchmark” Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.

The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That’s the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil
companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years.

It is why we went to war."

Does it really help that someone else agrees with me? Not unless that person is President, has a mandate, an Administration, and the guts to implement an ethical agenda instead of these insidious empire-building strategies. Is there a chance? Are you with me, Mr. Obama? Ms. Clinton? Mr. Edwards? Who is ready to stop cowboying abroad and start getting our act together at home? Where did all those billions get us? Seems we're going to keep We The People on voice mail for a long time ... while we're "out of town."

Selectively Compassionate Conservatism

Bridgethought of the Day: The world can't be a safe place as long as the gap between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, grows. Most extremism and even crime grows out of a sense of injustice, powerlessness, and oppression.

With that in mind, the great Republican Sweep seems to be at last bearing fruit. Things are definitely getting better, and the economy is improving - for those lucky to be the objects of the Conservatives' Compassion: Read on:

US Income Gap Is Widening Significantly, Data Shows
by David Cay Johnston

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent. The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

I wonder why?? Must be that great economic policy ... you know, "trickle-down" - after all, what more do "they" need than a trickle?

Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability."If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness," Professor Saez said. "It can have important political consequences."

This holds true for all people in all countries. Human beings don't vary from nation to nation on the fundamentals.

Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes foraverage Americans increased for the first time in several years. But becausethose at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for theirincome, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparitiesin 2005 are the same or larger now, Professor Saez said.

He noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and that the highest-income Americans were more likely than others to file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in inequality.The disparities may be even greater foranother reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able toaccurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.

Did you ever get the feeling that the rich don't pay taxes? And the poor get screwed? And was Leona Helmsley right?

The Bush administration argued that its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, had not added to the widening gap but "made the tax code more progressive, not less." Brookly McLaughlin, the chief TreasuryDepartment spokeswoman, said that this year "the share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., she noted, has acknowledged that income disparities have increased, but, along with a "solid consensus" of experts, attributed that shift largely to "the rapid pace of technological change has been a major driver in the decades-long widening of the income gap inthe United States."Others argued that public policies had played a role inthe shift. Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor, said that the data understates the widening disparity between the top 1 percent and the rest of the country.He said that in addition to rising incomes and reduced taxes, the equation should take into account cuts in fringe benefits to workers and in government services that middle-class and poor Americans rely on more than the affluent. These include health care, child care and education spending.

Since when is health care, child care and education a "fringe benefit", implying that these are not essentials, but merely luxuries? "Luxuries" that Marie Antoinette's fellow neocons never had to live without.

"The nation faces some very tough choices in coming years," he said. "That such a large share of the income gains are going to the very top, at a minimum, raises serious questions about continuing to provide tax cuts averaging over $150,000 a year to people making more than a million dollars a year, while saying we do not have enough money" to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans and cutting education benefits.

Direct evidence that Bush policies benefit the rich and hurt the poor - which has consistently been the result of Republican strategies as far as I can remember. Say what you want about Clinton, but his economic policies made economic gains more possible for the middle and lower middle classes, and life somewhat better for the poorest Americans. Bush has done the exact opposite. "Compassionate Conservatism" is merely selective -selecting the already-established folks over those who work for a living or have to struggle.

A major issue likely to be debated in Congress in the year ahead is whether reversing the Bush tax cuts would slow investment and, if so, how much that would cost the economy. Mr. Greenstein’s organization will release a report today showing that for Americans in the middle, the share of income taken by federal taxes has been essentially unchanged across four decades. By comparison, it has fallen by half for those at the very top of the income ladder.

Because the incomes of those at the top have grown so much more than those below them, their share of total income tax revenue has risen despite the reduced rates. The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928.

The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.The top tenth of a percent and top one-hundredth of a percent recorded even bigger gains in 2005 over the previous year. Their incomes soared by about a fifth in one year, largely because of the rising stock market and increased business profits. The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year.

Let's see, 1928...wasn't there some significant economic event in 1929? Maybe there's no direct link between 1929's crash and income disparity, and it hurt the poor the most - as usual. But for those who feel comfortable in their wealth, beware... disparity creates insecurity and social instability. People just don't like it. Try convincing Marie Ann-Coulter-toinette. Would it help if we showed her some examples in other countries? Try the Palestinian Territories, for starters. How about Iraq? Wonder why Al-Qaeda was born in Saudi Arabia while they have all that oil wealth? Well, they too have a gap between the rich and powerful Saudi family, and the rest of the country, against whom atrocities are being committed by that top tier group so beloved by oil companies and other power-brokers.

Poor Saudi family... poor Israelis ... poor Exxon Oil ... poor multi-national corporations ... do I hear the sound of one tear dropping? Yes, it must be ... compassionate conservatism.